About your Search

20130209
20130209
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> there are restraints. >> we're going to be debating -- >> in the pentagon and the cia. >> i mean, his little deputies are over there telling him what he can and can't do? >> this is going to be an ongoing debate in this program, there's no question about it. this is a whole new world. exit question. the united nations human rights council is now examining drone strikes. if some or all of anti- terrorist drone use is found to constitute war crimes, and the u.n. rules the matter to the icc, which is the u.n.'s international criminal court, will president obama be able to travel overseas for the rest of his life without fearing ending up in the icc docket? >> you shoe tell the icc to mind its own business but we should have the congress of the united states and the leaders of the united states debate this issue and set rules of engagement we can all agree upon and follow. >> point is well taken. stop trying to sweep this under the rug. >> let's put it up-front. >> eleanor. >> these are valid questions, and they were debated in the hearing for the confirmation of john brennan this week. it is how a democ
the vietnam war crimes working group collection. and this was a taskforce that was set up in the pentagon. and it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the my lai massacre. >> where 500 men, women, and children were murdered by american g.i.s. >> that's right. the military basically, what they wanted to do was make sure they were never caught flatfooted again by an atrocity scandal. so in the army chief of staff's office, there were a number of army colonels who worked to track all war crimes allegations that bubbled up into the media that gis and recently returned veterans were making public. and they tracked all these. and whenever they could, they tried to tamp down these allegations. >> your book is very important to me. i was there at the white house in the 1960s when president johnson escalated the war. my own great regret is that i didn't see the truth of the war in time didn't see what was happening there. and yet, as i said, you didn't even come to the experience until after it was all over. and yet you have become obsessed with telling this story.
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
the pentagon thinks they do not want or need, whether it they happen to be built in their districts. there is always plenty of room. as i understand it, the idea of the sequestration and originated with the president and his budget director, mr. lew. that is how they came up with this concept. republicans should simply let the thing become a fact. it is the only opportunity we have to make the present make any cuts at all. he seems to be so opposed to spending cuts and is only interested in finding tax and revenue. in my personal opinion, what we need to do is step back and take a look at our military and our commitments. we have bases in europe that have no reason to be there, certainly not in the numbers we are. host: we will leave it there. thanks for your call. ray locker? guest: we have a lot of military commitments all over the world. do we need to maintain a base in germany, for example? we could lessen our footprint there. there is a base on the islands in the atlantic that are controlled by portugal. we could dial that all presence there. if things get bad enough and there
in the state department or the pentagon are there. i think at some point the united states government and the white house have to make a decision that syria is an actual danger to america's national security interests. it is not something we can wash our hands from. and there are serious dangers and implications to the united states and the president actually to ask its national security team for realistic options that then he request gather his team and debate and decide about. there hasn't, i think, been a serious debate even with thunited stasgovernment as to what might be our three top options what are the costs and benefits of each. and if we were to pursue one of them, how would we do it. >> is there a legitimate argument that this destabilizes turkey to some degree, an important country to the united states, and a nato ally, andrew. >> absolutely. thousands of syrians go over the border into turkey every day. and it's very easy for pkk fighters, kurdish fighters to meld into those refugees, to go across the border and carry out terrorists attacks insidef tuey. no government in
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)